The recent Australian Institute of Family Studies report highlighting the changing nature of family forms should come as no surprise. The rate of children born outside of marriage has reached one in three births and many more children are now likely to have experienced a series of parent-type relationships before they reach the age of 18.
What should surprise us, however, is the continuing lack of desire from government to institute social policies that support family forms that are in the best interests of children. So much of the debate around family forms is founded in what adults and parents primarily want for themselves. It is worrying that there is no collective social resolve to promote and encourage the natural family, given the proven capacity of this family structure to contribute to child wellbeing.
Seriously? I’m guessing that these sorts of stats don’t include wife-beating as harmful to the children because the children themselves weren’t struck. That’s the way the laws were, previously. I had hoped they changed.
Obviously, the children’s interests must be top priority and live-in boyfriends/girlfriends aren’t a good idea, IMO. However, statistics show that in the cases of harm coming to a child, it’s usually perpetrated by the biological relatives. And women are most vulnerable to spousal abuse when they’re pregnant — pregnancy is actually one of the risk factors. If a husband is prone toward abusive behavior, it often shows up at that time.
Relationships and families are very intricate and cannot be generalized. The good point that the article makes is that the children must be the priority, and that’s what adults need to remember. Is it “best for baby” to remain with a husband or wife who is incapable of being a loving, selfless parent or inflicting harm? Of course not. But generations of wives endured physical and emotional abuse because it was considered “shameful” to divorce and to be a single woman. Let’s not go back there.
Really?! All this angst when abortion is available? Perhaps if made retroactive and unpunishable, it would solve this seeming problem. It stops being child abuse and becomes a normative social solution (cf. the Roman Empire, circa 0). Pre- or post- baptism would seem the church’s sole concern, and, of course, providing in the West, a fitting solemnity. See the EWC suggestions for pro=abort liturgies. They should be easily modifiable. Or consult Katherine Ragsdale, if in doubt.
/sarcasm.
That’s a thought. If there were no children there would be no child abuse. As a matter of fact if there were no children a lot of expensive government programs would no longer be needed.
#3. You are being sarcastic,but your answer is too often found in decadent societies. Children ARE a problem, at every level. If one cares most about oneself, the proper solution is to have no children. The more well=heeled, the more self indulgent, the more comfortable, the fewer children. The evidence is everywhere in Europe. Then the answer is that the poor, the ignorant, the unprotected, the careless will have the children and they will eventually swallow the old decadent society up. Have we seen this before? Larry